MYTH #1 – It is against the law for a neighborhood watch member to be armed while on duty.  ***FALSE***

ANSWER:  There are no statutes or administrative code that governs neighborhood watch.  The only Florida statutes that mention neighborhood watch specifically are:

1.  §843.16(2)(b) [ http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2012/0843.16 ] which governs radio equipment use.

2. §30.06 [ http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2012/30.06 ] which provides authorization for the County Sheriff to form neighborhood watch programs within their jurisdiction.

3. §166.0485 [ http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2012/166.0485 ] which provides authorization for municipalities to form neighborhood watch programs within their jurisdiction.

4. §843.20 [ http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2012/843.20 ] which provides for relief if members of a neighborhood watch program are victims of harassment or other criminal acts against them for performing their duties.

Nowhere in the above statutes listed in 1-4 does it mention anything about weapons or firearms and the prohibition of carrying for the purpose of lawful self-defense.

5. §790.06(15) [ http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2012/790.06 ] which governs the statewide preemption of the regulation of concealed weapons and firearms. This is called the class W license or more commonly referred to as the concealed carry license.

6.  §790.33 [ http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2012/790.33 ] which governs the statewide preemption on the regulation of firearms and ammunition.

7.  §790.06(12)(a) [ http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2012/790.06 ] which governs the EXCLUSIONS to concealed carry.

8.  §790.25 [ http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2012/790.25] which governs the EXCEPTIONS to the open carry and conceal carry ban (except concealment on or about your person without a class W license).

Again, nowhere in these statutes that I’ve listed in 5-8 mentions that concealed carry during the duty of a neighborhood crime watch volunteer is prohibited.  Furthermore, these statutes specifically state that a neither the county, municipality nor any political subdivision of the state OTHER THAN the state legislature can FURTHER regulate concealed carry, possession and use of firearms!  Therefore, as the state’s witness for the Sanford PD (SPD) volunteer coordinator stated on the stand, and I paraphrase, “…When that topic [armed] comes up, which it does a lot, we do not even answer that question because it is not within our area of jurisdiction.  We do preach not to confront the subjects or enter a suspicious scene. They [neighborhood watch volunteers] are our eyes and ears. … .”

MYTH #2 – When a non-emergency call taker, 911 operator or dispatch gives an instruction over the phone, you MUST follow that order.  ***FALSE***

ANSWER:  Having been a 911 Operator for a sheriff’s office here in Florida, this statement is completely false!  The state’s witness 911 Operator even said on the stand, and I paraphrase, “…We always say that. … .”  There is absolutely no statute or administrative code that stipulates that if an operator says something to you on the phone, you don’t follow it exactly or at all, then you will face criminal proceedings for not carrying out the order or instructions.  The only time you have a potential criminal liability is if you do not follow and order or instruction if IN THE PRESENCE OF a law enforcement officer (LEO) directs you to assist him or comply with an order and you countermand said directive. Also, if you are following someone while on the phone with the police, you violate traffic laws and you are witnessed by the police in doing so, you will most likely get a ticket or worse depending upon the severity of the traffic infraction.  These are just two examples as there are many more possibly scenarios.  The distinction needs to be made that the criminal liability would occur when IN THE PRESENCE of a LEO and not based upon any instructions a police operator would give over the phone.

Now the exact phrase in question was:

Operator:        “Are you following him?”
Zimmerman:   “Yes.”
Operator:        “OK, we don’t need you to do that.”
Zimmerman:   “OK.”

And immediately following that exchange, Zimmerman actually had already lost sight of Treyvon Martin and was starting the exchange of information with the operator about where to meet the responding LEO’s.  At this time, Zimmerman was behind the two rows of townhomes at the now infamous ‘T’.  This is substantiated by both Zimmerman’s interview by SPD and his video reenactment; both of which were proffered by the state

MYTH #3 – Following someone is against the law.  ***HALF TRUE***

ANSWER:  While performing the duties of neighborhood crime watch, licensed private security, licensed private investigator, licensed private repossession or a concerned citizen that notices an out of ordinary event, following is NOT illegal. As a matter of fact, law enforcement encourages this by the consistent phrase of “We need the community to be our eyes and ears,” or, “Call Crime Stoppers with a tip.” Now this has an 1984-esque ring to it, but it underlies a critical component to, and specifically to this case, the main duties of the neighborhood crime watch program which is to observe and report.

Here is the example that I alluded to in my opening remarks about “following”. Almost everyone is aware of the crime of stalking.  All too often, supporters of Treyvon Martin state that George Zimmerman was “stalking” Treyvon Martin that night. Well, since this is a criminal proceeding, we do need to use the correct LEGAL terms in discussing the events that took place.

Stalking is defined in §784.048 [http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2012/784.048 ] which states:

(1) As used in this section:
(a)“Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b)“Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.

(2)A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Now to prove stalking in a court of law, the state must prove the following element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant “willfully, maliciously and REPEATEDLY followed, harassed or cyberstalked the victim.” [ http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter8/p2c8s8.6.rtf ]

Now, listening to the 911 Operator’s testimony, the SPD volunteer coordinator testimony and the 911 recording, all either exhibit or has been confirmed that George Zimmerman was professional in his conduct as a neighborhood crime watch volunteer during his tenure and his calm demeanor on the phone on the night of 2/26/12.  That it would be extremely difficult to near impossible for the state to prove that Zimmerman was willful and maliciously harassing Treyvon Martin; especially since it was a SINGLE event.  Therefore, when folks consistently use the term “stalking” in describing Zimmerman’s actions in this case, under Florida law, they would be 100% INCORRECT.

MYTH #4 – The interchanging of terms:  “Self-Defense”, “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine”.

ANSWER:  These terms are NOT interchangeable.  They are very specific terms based upon the specific scenarios. All of this is defined specifically in Chapter 776 of Florida Statutes. [ http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/Chapter776 ]

“Stand Your Ground” (SYG):  Self-defense is a component of SYG.  Prior to 2005, if a self-defense scenario presented itself where deadly force was being used against a victim, the victim had a duty to retreat FIRST if that option was available before meeting with like kind deadly force in the protection of self or another.  When SYG was instituted, it removed the duty to retreat and you could meet force with force; both less-than-lethal and deadly force.

“Castle Doctrine”:  This law provides for the presumption that someone attempting to gain entry to your OCCUPIED home (a type of dwelling) is going to cause great bodily harm or possible death.  This states that the use of deadly force is AUTOMATICALLY authorized in the defense of your OCCUPIED home.  This law was also extended to your private conveyance (car).

“Self-Defense”:  Is an act by a victim to reciprocate with necessary and proportional force in the defense of self, another or property.  As it relates to property, you can only use force to protect property that which is yours or have been given authorization from the property owner to protect on their behalf.

“Deadly Force”:  The use of deadly force is authorized if the victim believes that he or she is in imminent fear of great bodily harm or possible death.

Self-Defense, or the legal term of justified homicide, is proven according to these jury instructions: [ http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter8/p2c7s7.7.rtf ]
“The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing.  § 782.02, Fla. Stat”

We will soon discuss the elements of the crimes 2nd Degree (Depraved) Murder and the automatic lesser charge of Manslaughter.  The term “justified homicide” is defined in the jury instructions of Manslaughter which has already been cited above.

Read more:saveamericafoundation.com